402 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

HYR 2.0 wrote...
lol... anyone trying to pull a mentally-unstable lab subject to safety loses their right to criticize non-Destroyers.

I could go either way with the clone, mainly because she was trying to kill Shepard just a moment ago at that point, and being genetically identical does pose some serious long-term issues, but I'd like for you to understand exactly what's wrong with your statement here. I find it curious that trying to save the clone is suggested to be contradictory to one's willingness to destroy the reapers. The difference is essentially being attacked by a trained attack dog, or being attacked by a fighter squadron. By your logic, those who wish to destroy the reapers in the end should never be merciful to anyone, ever, even if that person poses no real threat anymore, lest they become some kind of hypocrite. Unfortunately, that logic is about as airtight as Bernie Madoff's retirement plan. 

Modifié par KaiserShep, 07 mai 2013 - 09:30 .

[Ridwan]

Anyone that sympathises with the Reapers needs to pay more attention what happens in the game. You know... all the husks were once humans, remember?

[Yestare7]

M25105 wrote...

Anyone that sympathises with the Reapers needs to pay more attention what happens in the game. You know... all the husks were once humans, remember?

It don't matter....  We are all one in the glory of green eyes!!!

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

I could go either way with the clone, mainly because she was trying to kill Shepard just a moment ago at that point, and being genetically identical does pose some serious long-term issues, but I'd like for you to understand exactly what's wrong with your statement here. I find it curious that trying to save the clone is suggested to be contradictory to one's willingness to destroy the reapers. The difference is essentially being attacked by a trained attack dog, or being attacked by a fighter squadron. By your logic, those who wish to destroy the reapers in the end should never be merciful to anyone, ever, even if that person poses no real threat anymore, lest they become some kind of hypocrite. Unfortunately, that logic is about as airtight as Bernie Madoff's retirement plan. 

Nope, sorry. You fail. That's not my logic at all.

Anyone trying to save the Clone is trying to save a proven psycho in the body of a human killing-machine.

The Reapers only proven to be dangerous under control. At least someone freeing the Reapers is removing the source of the problem. The Clone's problem (mental) is not being fixed by the nitwits that try to save it.

The Clone was so bass akwards that it elects suicide over life (in that, though, he's on the same page as anti-enders).

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 07 mai 2013 - 10:35 .

[KaiserShep]

You can't use the suicide angle against saving the clone, because until it happens, that much is an unknown. You're also claiming that someone's mental instability can't be treated. I guess we can close all the psych wards. We've been wasting our efforts on all those sickos all this time, and it took your vast wisdom to enlighten me.

Good job adding the insult though. It only helps support your claims.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

KaiserShep wrote...

You can't use the suicide angle against saving the clone, because until it happens, that much is an unknown.

It only serves to confirm what should have been abundantly clear to begin with -- the 'clone is nuts.

You're also claiming that someone's mental instability can't be treated. I guess we can close all the psych wards. We've been wasting our efforts on all those sickos all this time, and it took your vast wisdom to enlighten me.

I'm not, so nice strawman.

It's a game. Options are limited. You're making one up that doesn't exist.

There exists no context suggesting that saving the 'Clone entails any "treatment" later. It's save or kill. Finito.

Good job adding the insult though. It only helps support your claims.

If that matters to you, start by checking your own (the numerous Destroyers ITT who've done the same).

[Reorte]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

KaiserShep wrote...

You can't use the suicide angle against saving the clone, because until it happens, that much is an unknown.

It only serves to confirm what should have been abundantly clear to begin with -- the 'clone is nuts.

But there's no evidence that it's fundamentally evil nuts that simply hasn't had a chance to be anything else, and that saving it will pose a huge, serious threat to Shepard. It was manipulated to hell by Brooks.

Jack seems more nuts than the clone. Javik seems more dangerous.

[PsyrenY]

I think the Clone has a chance at survival. Shep made it through re-entry after all, a little fall onto the Citadel can be dealt with. And the clone didn't even hit the ground, it looked like it smashed into a building partway down, maybe through a window.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I kill the Clone and the cuttlefish.

One a massively destructive force of nature...and the other a race of sentient starships that lurk in dark space.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The real Shepard is nuts, resorting to an all-out jailbreak to recruit one prisoner to his/her squad.

The other guy leads an army of those kinds of people in a group called "CAT-6."

Nah, I'm sure he's alright in the head though. *roll*

[KaiserShep]

Technically the warden turns on you, despite being a spectre, and since he dies shortly after, I think he qualified as being nuts himself.

[Indy_S]

Why do people seem to believe that Synthesis frees the Reapers somehow? Does the Catalyst actually say that or is this a wild conclusion?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Indy_S wrote...

Why do people seem to believe that Synthesis frees the Reapers somehow? Does the Catalyst actually say that or is this a wild conclusion?

It's something we would call "obvious."

[The Night Mammoth]

Apparently 'obvious' is synonymous with 'assumption', these days.

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 08 mai 2013 - 12:22 .

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Why do people seem to believe that Synthesis frees the Reapers somehow? Does the Catalyst actually say that or is this a wild conclusion?

It's something we would call "obvious."

What makes you think that the Catalyst isn't still controlling them?

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Apparently obvious is synonymous with assumption, these days.

SMH... after around 4th-grade or so, one typically stops reading stories that spell out all the details to you. You're supposed to start making inferences where things are not made explicitly clear.

In that, it's obvious that the Reapers have free-will in Sync.

Next you'll be asking if the Reapers are really dead in Destroy or if they simply fell over and are just injured.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I kill the Clone and the cuttlefish.

One a massively destructive force of nature...and the other a race of sentient starships that lurk in dark space.

Cheesecake, you might need an organ transplant some day. The clone was a perfect match.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I kill the Clone and the cuttlefish.

One a massively destructive force of nature...and the other a race of sentient starships that lurk in dark space.

Cheesecake, you might need an organ transplant some day. The clone was a perfect match.

Meh I knew it died no matter what, I decided to take the satisfying option.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Argolas wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

Why do people seem to believe that Synthesis frees the Reapers somehow? Does the Catalyst actually say that or is this a wild conclusion?

It's something we would call "obvious."

What makes you think that the Catalyst isn't still controlling them?

Concept that anti-enders struggle with: you don't hold on to explanations that don't make sense, you discard them.

In that, it's not stated whether the catalyst still has control of the Reapers or not in Sync, yet it's obvious.

Does it make any sense to hold on to them in Sync? At face-value, the answer is no.

[Indy_S]

If you're saying that the Catalyst forced their malevolence during the cycles, I can, using the same evidence, say that it enforces their benevolence in Synthesis. There is no indication at all that they are freed. We never see "free" Reapers.

[The Night Mammoth]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Apparently obvious is synonymous with assumption, these days.

SMH... after around 4th-grade or so, one typically stops reading stories that spell out all the details to you. You're supposed to start making inferences where things are not made explicitly clear.

In that, it's obvious that the Reapers have free-will in Sync.

Next you'll be asking if the Reapers are really dead in Destroy or if they simply fell over and are just injured.

Yes, well, clearly, people are taking that lovely idea and running like wild stallions with it. 

So now it's less 'filling the gaps' and more 'making entire new parts of the story up'. That's your perogative, but it's not 'obvious' by any stretch of the imagination. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 08 mai 2013 - 12:34 .

[EnerPrime]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Does it make any sense to hold on to them in Sync? At face-value, the answer is no.

It makes plenty of sense for the catalyst to keep control of the Reapers in Synthesis. Just in case it's grand 'solution' does not actually work, it can start up the old mass genocide cycle again to buy time for him to come up with a new new 'solution'.

Modifié par EnerPrime, 08 mai 2013 - 12:41 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Indy_S wrote...

If you're saying that the Catalyst forced their malevolence during the cycles, I can, using the same evidence, say that it enforces their benevolence in Synthesis. There is no indication at all that they are freed. We never see "free" Reapers.

Indication of free Reapers: the Catalyst as he details the effects on Sync, the ensuing epilogue of that ending.

Again, some things are not explictly stated to the audience because they're supposed to be infered (e.g. -- Aria/Aleena).

In the end, you can't make them see what they can't see.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

So now it's less 'filling the gaps' and more 'making entire new parts of the story up'.

You realize that my claim does not, in any way, contradict what we are shown in the Sync ending, right?

It does not, therefore, make up anything new.

It does, however, very plausibly fill in a gap (that gap being, what's up with the Reapers in Sync?)

That's your perogative, but it's not 'obvious' by any stretch of the imagination.

LOL. Not by any stretch of the imagination?? Give me a break.

Just because you can't fathom something, it doesn't make said thing any less obvious. There are some idiots who insist Shepard is dead in the Destroy breath-scene because they can't fathom them being alive, but I'd dare to guess the author's intent is that he/she lives. Likewise, I don't need to be explicitly told what happens to the Reapers in Sync.

BTW, I know of plenty of people (pro-Sync and otherwise) who've came to the same conclusion as I have.

Perhaps you can't stretch your imagination too far, but plenty others can/have.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 08 mai 2013 - 12:59 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

EnerPrime wrote...

It makes plenty of sense for the catalyst to keep control of the Reapers in Synthesis. Just in case it's grand 'solution' does not actually work, it can start up the old mass genocide cycle again to buy time for him to come up with a new new 'solution'.

Well even if that were true (doubt it) it appears to have worked out fine.

Therein, your argument allows for the possibility they're freed.


*edit* brb in 10-15.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 08 mai 2013 - 01:05 .